Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why did you not highlight...and actually seemingly ignore this part:
The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.
Afterall, THAT is the crux of my comp[laint as it created outrage to many that was not necessary as the statement itself is not at all accurate. Pediatricians do not MAKE that decision.....EVER.
He didn't say the word 'pediatrician'.
Also.
Peds DO make that decision. Then they consult the surgeon to do the procedure. Of course the surgeon has the final say as to whether he'll do it or not, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find one that refused.
If the surgeon has the final say, then it's he/she that makes the decision and not the pediatrician. Pediatricians decide whether or not to consult with a surgeon but if the surgeon deems the procedure unnecessary, then the procedure would not be done. If that's true ( which I believe it is), then who makes the decision? Not the pediatrician, just as OldandTired said.
Given the quote, it sounds as tho' he's speaking of the surgeon, not a ped.OK, I heard.
"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference. The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."
There's not a thing there I disagree with. It's true.
Sorry.
Wow. So THAT'S what he said the right was going off on. It's nothing like it was hyped to be. And btw, he's dead on.
And also. Notice he didn't say the word "pediatrician".
See how things can be spun? In his quote..and what "the right was upset with as well as pediatricians nationwide was what she did NOT highlight....
The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'"
And no...he did not say pediatrician.....but he DID say "your child" and usually the doctor of your child is a pediatrician.
And seeing as people get to sue for scars they get from surgery, I am sure people would sue for tonsils being taken out for no reason.....but they arent. He simply showed he is a paranoid asshole and expects the rest of us to be that way.....
ANd sorry...NO pediatrician has the right to say to ANY surgeon..."I insist you perform the surgery. The surgeon has the final; say and is based on his or her OWN diagnoisis.
Obama simply decided to play on the paranoia and naivety of the American people.
And it didnt work....so now he is trying a new tactic....Make the insurance companies the villians......
If you need to jump from tactic to tactic...maybe something is wrong with your initiative?
well maybe since the money coming from insurance that your employer pays on they should quit acting like it belongs to them.
OK, I heard.
"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference. The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."
There's not a thing there I disagree with. It's true.
Sorry.
Wow. So THAT'S what he said the right was going off on. It's nothing like it was hyped to be. And btw, he's dead on.
And also. Notice he didn't say the word "pediatrician".
See how things can be spun? In his quote..and what "the right was upset with as well as pediatricians nationwide was what she did NOT highlight....
The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'"
And no...he did not say pediatrician.....but he DID say "your child" and usually the doctor of your child is a pediatrician.
And seeing as people get to sue for scars they get from surgery, I am sure people would sue for tonsils being taken out for no reason.....but they arent. He simply showed he is a paranoid asshole and expects the rest of us to be that way.....
ANd sorry...NO pediatrician has the right to say to ANY surgeon..."I insist you perform the surgery. The surgeon has the final; say and is based on his or her OWN diagnoisis.
Obama simply decided to play on the paranoia and naivety of the American people.
And it didnt work....so now he is trying a new tactic....Make the insurance companies the villians......
If you need to jump from tactic to tactic...maybe something is wrong with your initiative?
New York is no different.
Dealing with unemplyment is a job in itself.
No different than the DMV....Post office......
Yup....lets give them healthcare. There's a great idea.
damn you guys are boring...
social security is administered with an approximately 4% administrative cost... I defy any private business to deliver services that inexpensively.
and health care is already govt administered vis a vis medicare/medicaid. as your folks if they feel like giving up medicare....
and if the person who wrote the OP wants to give up his unemployment insurance.... which ONLY exists because government intervened in the "private market".
Well...lets try to be a little accurate....
Social Security OPERATES AT A LOSS with approximately 4% administrative cost....I defy any business to be as foolish.
And yes...Medicaid and medicare are already government administered and are ALSO operating at a severe loss despite only catering to two segments of the population.
And I am curious...do you have any idea who pays for unemployment? Really...are you aware of where the money comes from?...HINT: It is NOT The taxpayer
Personally I could care less what other countries think about us. The fact is we (Americans) have done more for other countries than anyone else. To quote Gordon Sinclair: Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes and typhoons it is the United States that hurries into help. We have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?
That is a great idea, and would cut 1017 pages out of the bill.Now Medicare operates at a loss for a very simple reason. It insures absolutely the worst demographic in the population. The last few years of ones life is when you are going to need the most medical interventions. How to solve the problem? Make Medicare the UHC for the US. Then the whole demographic is covered.
Personally I could care less what other countries think about us. The fact is we (Americans) have done more for other countries than anyone else. To quote Gordon Sinclair: Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes and typhoons it is the United States that hurries into help. We have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?
New Orleans, as one easy recent example. We can play who-did-what games, but that's really not the point. You may not care what other countries think of us in a gut level reaction, but America does not stand alone on this planet. If we'd had better relations with allies after 9-11 while going into Iraq, as one example, then the expense and casualties of the war would be spread around, and the negatives would have been diluted in effect. Which in turn would have benefits for our economy. We don't live in a bubble, and with our current level of technology along with globalization, countries are interdependent at this point. I don't think isolationism works in today's world. I'd rather maintain friendly relations with nations with similar values, and reap the benefits that come along with those relationships. And I do think our economy depends on it at this point in our history.
New Orleans? Can you be more specific, like, which nation raced to our aid.
America will survive she always does.
Are you sure about that? The assumption of America's invincibility is, IMO, one of the reasons that we find ourselves in such a mess. So many people assume that this nation will always survive unscathed and fundamentally unchanged so they feel they don't have to take a stand or be proactive in preserving the USA. The Romans though their empire invincible as well.
This ain't Rome and we ain't Romans.
Nothing was said about coming out of this unscathed or unchanged, it was simply stated that America will survive. And I happen to agree, for those that don't think so, you can leave while the leaving's good.
New Orleans? Can you be more specific, like, which nation raced to our aid.
Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed - washingtonpost.com
As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.
Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" -- a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again -- the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."
Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.
Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.
In addition, valuable supplies and services -- such as cellphone systems, medicine and cruise ships -- were delayed or declined because the government could not handle them. In some cases, supplies were wasted.
The struggle to apply foreign aid in the aftermath of the hurricane, which has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $125 billion so far, is another reminder of the federal government's difficulty leading the recovery. Reports of government waste and delays or denials of assistance have surfaced repeatedly since hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck in 2005.
Administration officials acknowledged in February 2006 that they were ill prepared to coordinate and distribute foreign aid and that only about half the $126 million received had been put to use. Now, 20 months after Katrina, newly released documents and interviews make clear the magnitude of the troubles.
More than 10,000 pages of cables, telegraphs and e-mails from U.S. diplomats around the globe -- released piecemeal since last fall under the Freedom of Information Act -- provide a fuller account of problems that, at times, mystified generous allies and left U.S. representatives at a loss for an explanation. The documents were obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a public interest group, which provided them to The Washington Post.
In one exchange, State Department officials anguished over whether to tell Italy that its shipments of medicine, gauze and other medical supplies spoiled in the elements for weeks after Katrina's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005, and were destroyed. "Tell them we blew it," one disgusted official wrote. But she hedged: "The flip side is just to dispose of it and not come clean. I could be persuaded."
In another instance, the Department of Homeland Security accepted an offer from Greece on Sept. 3, 2005, to dispatch two cruise ships that could be used free as hotels or hospitals for displaced residents. The deal was rescinded Sept. 15 after it became clear a ship would not arrive before Oct. 10. The U.S. eventually paid $249 million to use Carnival Cruise Lines vessels.
Are you sure about that? The assumption of America's invincibility is, IMO, one of the reasons that we find ourselves in such a mess. So many people assume that this nation will always survive unscathed and fundamentally unchanged so they feel they don't have to take a stand or be proactive in preserving the USA. The Romans though their empire invincible as well.
This ain't Rome and we ain't Romans.
Nothing was said about coming out of this unscathed or unchanged, it was simply stated that America will survive. And I happen to agree, for those that don't think so, you can leave while the leaving's good.
Lonestar, rather than going full bitch as was my first inclination at your "you can leave while the leaving's good" crap, I'm going to try to make my point more nicely. You can be naive and stick your head in the sand, but this country's future is NOT guaranteed. It has survived wars and depression and terrorism to this point because there are still more people here that were taught to love this country above all others. Today's youth is no longer taught America's exceptionalism in the way they were years ago. Today's youth are more likely to be taught in the public education venue, that our nation is no better than any other nation. They are told that showing pride in their country is arrogance. We have school systems in OUR country that teach the children in their care that we stole this nation from Indians and Mexico and have disallowed children from dispaying American flags so that others are not offended. Look around you at the people in power positions that routinely apologize for our 'bad" country and then realize that this country won't stand forever unless her citizens wise up and decide to protect her. There will always be some sort of nation on this continent, but will it be a nation that your parents and grandparents would recognize as the United States of America?
As far as I know, it has always been that way. It was that way back in the early '80's (last time I as unemployed).Why can't virgina be governed by some other state? Apparently it can't do the job . You have to wait 3 to 4 weeks to get unemployment started, thats stupid
You helped make my point, those people that see this country as evil, should get the hell out, because nothing will ever please them. Although I do believe this country will survive despite the naysayers. Personally I wouldn't live in a country I thought was evil or bad.
the idea is to improve on failure not accept it.
[As far as I know, it has always been that way. It was that way back in the early '80's (last time I as unemployed).
To be perfectly honest, while I knew that other countries did make pledges of not only money but services and goods and supplies, I had no idea that it was that much. The FOIA documents are there; I'd like to actually go through them and see just what came from where. It would especially be interesting to see what poorer countries offered in aid, resources that they themselves certainly needed (and then we let it go to waste??). I remember a story about Cuba offering up medical personnel to assist, and the US refusing. Why? That made no sense to me.New Orleans? Can you be more specific, like, which nation raced to our aid.
Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed - washingtonpost.com
As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.
Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" -- a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again -- the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."
Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.
Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.
In addition, valuable supplies and services -- such as cellphone systems, medicine and cruise ships -- were delayed or declined because the government could not handle them. In some cases, supplies were wasted.
The struggle to apply foreign aid in the aftermath of the hurricane, which has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $125 billion so far, is another reminder of the federal government's difficulty leading the recovery. Reports of government waste and delays or denials of assistance have surfaced repeatedly since hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck in 2005.
Administration officials acknowledged in February 2006 that they were ill prepared to coordinate and distribute foreign aid and that only about half the $126 million received had been put to use. Now, 20 months after Katrina, newly released documents and interviews make clear the magnitude of the troubles.
More than 10,000 pages of cables, telegraphs and e-mails from U.S. diplomats around the globe -- released piecemeal since last fall under the Freedom of Information Act -- provide a fuller account of problems that, at times, mystified generous allies and left U.S. representatives at a loss for an explanation. The documents were obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a public interest group, which provided them to The Washington Post.
In one exchange, State Department officials anguished over whether to tell Italy that its shipments of medicine, gauze and other medical supplies spoiled in the elements for weeks after Katrina's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005, and were destroyed. "Tell them we blew it," one disgusted official wrote. But she hedged: "The flip side is just to dispose of it and not come clean. I could be persuaded."
In another instance, the Department of Homeland Security accepted an offer from Greece on Sept. 3, 2005, to dispatch two cruise ships that could be used free as hotels or hospitals for displaced residents. The deal was rescinded Sept. 15 after it became clear a ship would not arrive before Oct. 10. The U.S. eventually paid $249 million to use Carnival Cruise Lines vessels.
Well I'll be damned. I wonder why New Orleans is still struggling four years after the fact, with this enormous out pouring of good will from other nations you'd think it would be back to normal there.
Hurricane Katrina - News - Times Topics - The New York Times
Why can't virgina be governed by some other state? Apparently it can't do the job . You have to wait 3 to 4 weeks to get unemployment started, thats stupid
Why can't virgina be governed by some other state? Apparently it can't do the job . You have to wait 3 to 4 weeks to get unemployment started, thats stupid
Try being a Marine. Few if any of these politicians could lead recruits to the chow hall.
